Global Economic Strategy

"In a time of drastic change it is the learners who inherit the future.
The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists."
Eric Hofer

Hm m m . . .

"Discussion on the Global Economic Crisis"
Recorded: October 3, 2008
Aired: October 9, 2008

globe_pointer USA's Poor and Middle Class as of 11/20/10
Our message to the UN Countries "follow the American way."

The September 2008 Financial Crisis: The USA Job Market Challenge 2010.

Poorest States Benefit Least! Impact of Globalization (9 July 2007)

Muslim Reformation? (Posted 3/31/2007):

 For details on the Global Conditions: The Worlds Problems. They did not go away...just more added after 911 WTC.

Three Global Questions?

Against All Odds!

U.S.A.'s War On Terrorism (after 9/11)

The Rebuilding of Iraq after May 2003

Democracy or Corportcracy: Beginning or End of the American Dream?

The Changing United Nations 1999.

Global Economic Development - What's Happening.

The End of Capitalism!

New Developments!

Japan: Key to Asian Crisis.

Global Strategy - The Yin and Yang.

Africa - Next coming Boom!

Libya - Key to Africa's Development.

Iran - Getting to Love the Enemy. The Rogue States and Evil Empires.

Russia - Key to World Peace.

Iraq Bombing December 1998: Russia/China Reaction

USA - The REAL impact of "Globalization" and "Downsizing".

The September 2008 Financial Crisis: The USA Job Market Challenge 2010.

What really caused the 2008 Financial Crisis? USA policy to keep the USA economy looking like it was expanding to the rest of the world. Why? We are "globalizing" or moving jobs and trillions of investment dollars, technology and production capacity into foreign countries and making foreign people and countries super wealthy. See Forbes "World Billionaires" Where do we want them to put their money? "Where it is safe." In the "ever growing" USA economy of course!

How did they do this? What led up to the crisis? If no jobs (continually losing more jobs) and no real growth in the economy, What is the Magic of economic growth for the rest of the world to see. More "Voodoo Economics," only more sophisticated this time. Order the banks to issue credit cards and open up credit to anyone. The Banks did, but needed "usury credit rates" because they knew people without jobs were going to be late or default. The Democrats fought this for ten years until some Democrats like Joe Biden (Delaware banking state) switched over to the Republican side to OK higher rates for the Banks. Then the banks complained that people were going bankrupt and protecting their homes. So Joe Biden (Democrat and others) sided with the Republicans to change the Bankruptcy laws ( take away protection of homeowners to protect their homes) to allow the Banks to now force people to sell their homes to pay back the banks.

Now open up the whole housing market to easy credit for home mortgages. Of course, put in "Bloom Mortgages" in a few years to recoup your loses and foreclose the homes.

A No-Brainer! Here comes the Financial Crisis!

Trouble is the USA economy is not growing, and can not grow when the largest production companies have moved out of the USA by dumping millions of USA jobs since Ronald Reagan came into office. I am not picking on Republicans; Clinton was a BIG contributor to this process along with all the Washington law makers. What is left for the USA and job growth? Startup entrepreneurial companies with few workers and the probability that 85% will fail in the first 2 years of business.

We shall see how Obama will get job growth back in the USA in 2010.

"Washington is Broke," Obama campaign banner/ad. Is he now part of the "broke?"

Now the real question is: "Where did the money go?" Try eating a one dollar bill. OK now try eating 100 dollar bills. Hope you are doing well at this task . . . Try eating one million dollar bills, or for a real challenge try eating one billion dollar bills. How about a trillion or two dollar bills. The US Treasury prints these dollars and they loan them out, but they also know where the money went. Money does not disappear. Nor do you "lose money." It (money) merely shifts to the "efficient players." Did you ever wonder who the "efficient players" are?

USA's Poor and Middle Class as of 11/20/10
USA message to the UN Countries, "follow the American way"
"Be like America!"

So what is the "American way"?
Over 50 Million Americans are now on "Food Stamps" as the Rich keep pocketing the wealth of America.
(Who are the Rich who are pocketing the money? How are they doing this?)
This is the largest number of people on Food Stamps in the history of America (USA) and rapidly climbing.
Is America becoming the new "Banana Republic" of the 21st Century?
A few in power dictators (Rich) Banana Republic's control their people with the gun, prison, death and no human rights.
The few Rich in the new Banana Republic control their citizens with the Rule of Law ("No man is above their Laws").
If you can get the people to focus on terrorism, you can justify more police and taking more of their rights away.
If you can stir up the people about "Big spending in Washington, DC and the need to cut Big Government" . . .
Especially "give more tax breaks to the Citizens (only the RICH benefit greatly because money COMPOUNDS
(Multiplies) for the Rich and does not "trickle-down" as they preach to the voters.
Anybody see the word "TRICK" in "trickle-down?"

 "Poorest States benefit least from globalization’s advantages."
UN General Assembly President - 9 July 2007

The world’s poorest countries have benefited the least from globalization and yet suffered the most from the phenomenon’s downsides, the General Assembly President said today at the opening of a conference convened to help those States make lasting economic gains.
Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa told the ministerial conference of the world’s 50 Least Developed Countries (LDCs), held in Istanbul, that
globalization has had an extremely uneven impact on the lives of the world’s people.
“The paradox is evident when some in the world are waiting in line to buy new consumer technologies at a cost almost equal to the annual per capita income of hundreds of millions of people,” she said.
“Mahatma Gandhi once said that in poor places, people see God in a piece of bread. This still holds true after many decades. LDCs have found themselves in an unfortunate situation.
They have benefited least from globalization, and have been affected most by its negative impact.
Sheikha Haya, who opened the conference along with Abdullah Gul, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, stressed that the forces of globalization will continue to shape the world for decades.

- UN Ministerial Confeence, Istanbul, Turkey, 9 July 2007

Three Global Questions?

(Posted 6/25/04)

Question number One?

Name ONE Arab or Islamic country in the world that has or is benefiting under "Globalization" like China or India?

Question number Two?

Name ONE African country that has or is benefiting under "Globalization" like China or India?

Question number Three?

Name ONE Latin American/Central American/South American/Caribbean (start with Mexico) country in the world that has or is benefiting under "Globalization" like China and India?

The answers relate to Corporate Investments, Hedge Funds, ODA (Official Development Assistance Funds), WTO, World Bank, IMF and "Structural Adjustments" and direct or indirect Global Policies. Global policies impact countries ... Felt as a "push" on the country. Then as a "spill" to other groups within the country. Then to a "spill" to countries nearby. Then to a "blow-back." of some kind of resistance or "push-back." Global policies can be Directly focused on a country; Indirectly focused on a country; and Not focused at all (ignored totally like Afghanistan (prior to 9-11) and others (see above.)

The over ridding questions remain ... "Butter or Guns" Economics? Social and Economic Development or War? The American clolonies were considered "terrorists" by the English Governemnt when the American's did not feel the social and economic policies of England where "fair."

Suggested reading: Samuelson's classic text book on Economics 101 taught all over the world.

Return to top of Page

Against All Odds!

(Posted 6/26/04)

The United Nations is full of many "great people" who really care about the worlds problems and look for some effective solutions. The United Nations is also full of many "very small people," low level "bureaucratic types" who think they are in-charge and try to exercise their power over every one else. They will write letters about you if you are "inside" the UN in some formal relationship/status with the UN. And then "cc" you on the letter, and NEVER give you your "cc" copy so that you know what has been said about you or can even attempt to defend yourself against the allegations.

When you are "outside" the UN system with no formal relationship to the UN what-so-ever ... Then, they will harass you with threatening letters from the legal department ("Notice To Cease and Desist") and make false accusations about you. Ask you to "deny your very existence." Or, violate your First Amendment Rights. (We have the evidence/proof and letters.)

While we started the FIRST UN TV weekly Broadcast and Webcasts in the USA and World in 1994, to allow the UN Ambassadors a platform to discuss their countries challenges and opportunities (and maybe get some help); the UN, since Kofi Annan, has continually attempted to not allow the UN Ambassadors this platform by continually putting pressure on IAED and Dr. Larry T. Gell, Director-General.

All while the real work of the UN ... Solving the worlds problems goes on unsolved! Genocide in the Sudan June 2004.. Half the worlds populations trying to exist on a dollar a day. A billion people starving every night. HIV/AIDS in rapid ascent. The "UN Millenniun Goals" rapidly slipping away. The "gap" between the "haves" and "have nots" increasing yearly ... On and on and on.

It is for the above (and many more) reasons that IAED has no formal status with the UN, nor do we want any formal relationship with the UN. Been there, done that, wouldn't be prudent! Not interested!

Return to top of Page



U.S.A.'s War on Terrorism (after 9/11)

(Posted 3/31/2007):

Are we in the middle of a religious Reformation (battle) between the Muslims/Islam/Arabs? They seem to be struggling with the far right Iran concept of total Islamic law and the more left secular free and open Arab/Islamic countries. Atavistic throw back to our Protestant vs Catholic Wars. Rather stupid since most of us have been there, done that!. And, we have all learned to live together and coexist in peace. Seems people have to kill a lot of each other to figure our what we already know. You would think when it comes to whatever religion your pushing (supporting) the groups ought to read the holy books of their religions... Last time I read any of these they all said, "love thy neighbor and take care of the poor." If they won't follow their own Gods and Prophets books of wisdom, they must be just killing for power and territory. So, nothing ever changes! Are we going to be sucked into their Reformation? Should we fight it for them? Referee their wars? Seems odd,.. here we are globalizing the world with economic development and exploring space; And over a billion of us on the same planet are back in the period of the Reformation (16th Century).

(Posted 5/12/2003):

We will examine some key issues here (stay tuned!). Iraq and the chances for success? Iraq "Opportunity for Democracy" or "Hornets Nest"? Did Iraq have any "Weapons of Mass Destruction" before we attacked? Can the Homeland Security do its job without destroying more of the civil rights of its citizens? Is the "Patriot Act" patriotic? Is this a "Holy War"? What happened to the "bad guys,"...the Communist? What happened to Capitalism's enemy number one... Socialism? What is behind the Muslim/Arab World's complaints about us? What is the "Poverty of Dignity"? Where is Sadam? Where is Osama? Who is next on the "Hit List" of "Preemptive Strikes"? Are the terrorists winning? How effective really was their first attack on the U.S.A. (9/11)? What are the fundamental structure problems of the U.S.A. that will block or hinder security efforts and the ability to execute a successful global military campaign?

One example might be the FBI. Suppose you were patriotic (not to be confused with the unpatriotic "Patriot Act") and you had some information which might be useful to the FBI. The FBI now has the new and added job of checking out all the "internal potential terrorists." So when you try to help them, they will automatically think you must be a terrorist, and start doing what they know how to do; what they have been trained to do...investigate you! They are the "Bureau of Investigation." They may put bugs on your phone, and in your house, maybe your bathrooms and bedrooms (remember Mr. Hanson; not unusual behavior for the FBI). Next, it will be finger prints, a DNA sample, and finally a Lie Detector Test! They hope you will somewhere along the line you will incriminate yourself... so they can get an arrest (fill their quota). They can't trust anybody, not even their own (many recent examples in the current news lately). So what is the possibility of them doing their job effectively without alienating the citizens who could really help them? Can they tell the "Good Guys" from the "Bad Guys"?

The problem is not them. The problem is an organizational strategy/structure problem. Their strategy is changing because of 9/11 and they will not be able to change their organization structure to meet the changing strategy. Why? Well there are many reasons. Most important, the older people at the top will not even know what I am talking about! Neither will the youngest new recruits. Remember when their own NYC FBI Agent who kept telling them that the terrorist were coming back to destroy the World Trade Center Buildings. He was fired, and later died as the head of security in the World Trade Buildings 9/11 disaster! And the biggest block will be one of my "rules" which I learned after nearly 50 years consulting to the world's largest transnational corporations...

Gell's Rules: "When you don't know what to do in this world, you do what you know what to do!" In their (FBI) case, "INVESTIGATE!" Thereby intimidating, or irritating their informants and scaring them away.

More to come . . .

Return to top of Page

Rebuilding Iraq after May 2003
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
(Posted 5/21/2003 - Working on this...)

2006 update... Well you get the idea!

Chances for success...extremely low!

IAED wishes Iraq all the Luck and Success they can possible acquire! They will need it. They will need that course the great graduate schools refuse to teach..."Luck 101" and their oil.

What is positive for the possibility of success:

World' second largest oil reserve. They "should" have plenty of money - we will have to wait and see.

Huge contracts to American (Texas) firms, paid with Iraq oil and later Iraq debt, will be a very positive incentive to the western companies to rebuild Iraq. They can do a rapid and fantastic job of transformation if they can stabilize and secure Iraq.

Many international NGO's, who mean well, will try hard to help them with restricted budgets (donations from the rich are declining).

USA and the Western societies need to get "at least one" Arab/Islamic country in the whole world benefiting from Globalization, and a "model" example to the rest of Islam... a truly free democratic secular, economic and socially functioning Islamic country. (This may be the strongest hope for Iraq, if the wetern world really understands the importance of this.)

Highly educated, most advanced country prior to Iraq-Iran War of all the Arab countries.

Was a secular type of government. Already has that experience.

Should be a very strong desire to be free from the Dictator, by all groups (except the Bath Party.)

A chance now for development, education and ability to move back into the world community.

Very good legal system, medical doctors, other professional experts, etc.

What is negative for the possibility of success:

UN experts estimate that it takes 25 to 50 years to rebuild a country after a long period of war.

Three large basic ethnic groups in the country who don't mix well together.

Doubt USA will be interested in long-term commitment of "Nation Building" required. Not in terms of time or money.

USA current government is one of "Neo-Con" far right religious thinking (not very Islamic): "End of Big Government," Gingrich "Contract -with-America," "non-entitlement policies," tax breaks for the rich, reduction of jobs-movement of cheap labor to other countries (China, India, etc), escalating population without insurance (past week report of 59 to 60 million people without insurance at times), fading "American Dream" for many Americans, growing "gap" between rich and poor, continuing need to pour money into military defense, costly wars against terrorism to conduct globally, global policies which upset friends (worldwide).

Current Capitalist "Greed is Good" hubris thinking is "you are not entitled to anything!" "we are entitled to get richer" and you can "get yourself a job!" Only problem is that as they get richer there are less and less jobs, or no jobs at all. This is the same problem handed the Russians when they chose Capitalism over Socialism (1989). Suddenly there were no jobs from the state, and millions of people, including Ph.D.'s, were out on the street. Iraq will suddenly need millions of jobs to survive their new Capitalism. This is a direct clash with Islam's socialist views and actions.

With some 54% of children born into poverty in New York City; year-after-year non stop increase of people needing to be fed; food donations dropping; jobs being lost; homes being taken away...why would they suddenly be interested in those same conditions imporving in Baghdad and Iraq?

They have been cutting the "entitlement system" in America since the early 1980's, so why would they suddenly be willing to start up a new one in Iraq. Iraq needs immediate "entitlement" and will for some time to come.

If Afghanistan (very recent example) is any indicator: Looking at "pledged amounts." vs "actual investments delivered to-date" is almost nothing!

Islam is already very upset with USA and the Western World's policies. More radical groups and unemployed youth are willing to "fight back." The radical wing is "on-the march."

Islam is struggling with Economic Poverty, but more importantly with the "Poverty of Dignity," which they believe we caused them. (Underline cause for the hatred towards USA and the West.) Basic principle of Psychology: "All behavior is caused." So far the West, (not understanding this) is busy trying to solve the "symptoms," still leaving the real cause unaddressed. It is the old "Abstraction Ladder" problem which always plagues the corporations.

Islam will want a socialist religious fundamental society (like Iran.) everywhere.

Possibility of installing a similar government like the Shaw's Iran (mistake) with the "population control" needed for stability and security. Too close to Iran with past experience with USA.

Strategically sitting right in the middle of Islam and the Arab World. "Center of Change" for Islam and the Arab World or "Center of the Bullseye." for terrorist attacks.

Israel and Palestine conflict must be settled.

A lot of hatred from the past, and tremendous need for reconciliation among the people.

Norman Mailer interview in Newsweek January 27, 2003: "So what do you think of Iraq? "

"Leaving aside all the usual explanations - the oil, the fact that if the people in power in this country win they will then have this commanding position in the Near-East - forgetting all that, the fact is, that war could just go on and on and on. But I don't think that bothers our leaders very much. I think they kind of like the idea that if the country gets very military, then they can stop all the "frees" - free love, gay liberation, women's liberation, all the things they detest. There's no question that the level of uncertainty, the absence of absolutes, has probably never been greater. So the longer the danger goes on, the longer they have to create a new kind of society. We're in for curious times."

Return to top of Page

"Democracy or Corportcracy*:
Beginning or End of the American Dream?

It depends on where, and to whom you are born! More to come...

Massive rapidly growing "gap" between Rich and Poor in America.

Continual "downsizing" of the Federal Government, massive transfer of money to rich and corporations; means no money for states, cities and people. Social economic problems building.

* See" "One World: The Ethics of Globalization" Chapter on the World Trade Organization.

Return to top of Page



The Changing United Nations.

2002 It is a new UN! Secretary-General, Kofi Annan was right! Without the corporations support, the UN is doomed in effectiveness. Efficiency is still a big problem for the UN. And their image needs all the PR (public relations) firms available, and mainly focused on America. The real threat to the UN is President George W. Bush and his new stated policy of "preemptive strike" against any country with "bad leaders" or "bad weapons." This policy legally will negate the United Nations. Without a United Nations...what kind of a world will we have? President Bush is right! Seems everywhere in the world where Islam buts up against the non-Islam world there are problems/war/terrorists. How can you have a globalized world with so much insecurity? Seems like the far right fundamentalist on all sides are moving towards a worldwide religious war. A close look at the situation indicates the problem is not religion, but dignity...a "poverty of dignity" ready to spill over headlong into Globalization. How will we return to a stabilized world again? Strategy, Tactics, and Results remain to be seen. The world's problems are much more complex than they look, or than tonight's TV guest "experts" will explain for you.

Meanwhile, the world's problems for most people are continuing to get worse!

China being almost the only exception, funded by the richest in the developed countries. The developed countries are "feeding" the Dragon. And, we most wait to see what kind of a Dragon she will be? The "Dragon of Fire" as perceived by the West? Or, the "Dragon of Water" as seen by the East? - October 2002

Censorship in 1999 of UN information under the new management of Secretary-General, Kofi Annan at the United Nations. Also new, Discrimination and a new Black List! Ex-Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali's policy of "openness" and "transparency" seems to have left with him and with the entrance of Kofi Annan and team.

What is behind Richard Butler's comments on The Charlie Rose TV show on Tuesday August 2, 1999?

Richard Butler said, "Both Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations and his immediate staff who reports to him on the 38th Floor of the Secretariat were either not willing to face facts or were blocking information and contacts with Kofi Annan on Iraq and Arms inspections. The 38th Floor are opting for a low key political solution, one that remains diplomatic (but, not necessarily realistic to the facts) solution."

There is a very noticeable series of changes since Boutros Boutros-Ghali and his staff have left, a little over a year ago. Even the NGOs (people) find the door closed and the telephone calls not returned on the 38th Floor! New Censorship of NGOs and new restrictions and control of NGOs at the UN.

We have heard comments like, "The United Nations of the United States" and or "The United Corporations" as the UN and Kofi Annan seems to be able to attend every corporation or high level global business meeting. Both Kofi Annan and the UN are openly courting the business community. It use to be the Secretary-General only visited Heads of State, Heads of Governments, now it's Heads of Corporations!

The USA strategy of cutting the operating funds to the UN for the past 10 or so years is working. The UN is forced to go to the Corporate world for help and money. The UN has downsized and dumped many experienced and knowledgeable heads of key departments and replaced them with bureaucratic "diplomatic types" with little or NO UN experience.

The strategy of funding only 14 countries (China being the biggest recipient) has left countries like "Bill Gates/Microsoft" more powerful than most of the UN countries combined together. Most of the countries are extremely weak (no money, no power). The Economic and Social Council has been weakened and the Security Council has become the power center. When it isn't working, it is avoided and decisions are moved outside the UN (NATO).

The head of the United Nations and his staff has changed. The head of the Department of Public Information is new with no UN experience. The Head of the UNDP is new with no UN experience. Many departments have been consolidated under the head of the Secretariat ECOSOC Affairs Department. An already over worked department.

There is a deliberate effort to restrict the NGOs activities under the Kofi Annan administration at the UN.

Can the U.S.A. patch up relations at the UN after years of not paying their legally owed UN Dues? Most countries tell the USA, "Why should you care, you don't pay your bills anyway." That's the job left for Ambassador Richard Holbrooke; We wish him a lot of luck! And suggest that a "fist full of dollars" will help a lot of UNer's to forget the past real fast.

More to come... stay tuned.


2006 ... So what changes?

 Return to top of Page




Global Economic Development

(Posted 8/26/06)
The great "Structural Adjustments" and "Globalization" process has come to an obvious slowdown since 911. While the West thought everyone in the world was going to come on board (join the Globalization Band Wagon) the radical side of Islam and the Arab world has decided otherwise. Globalization and Democratization of all countries has caught up to the process and ideas, and now responds with a backlash or blowback. The West demands a voting Democracy in countries, and the worlds countries follow suit by electing the Capitalists out and the Socialists and Radicals in. The West demands a Capitalist system of Economics (Butter & Guns) and the radical countries learn to love the Guns (weapons). And, they know how to sell and use them! The trouble is that the Guns are being sold all over the earth, which means your soldiers are probably going to die by your own weapons. The weapons are getting bigger and better at killing. Nuclear for everyone is a short hop away. Then there is the OIL question? Who is sitting on the oil? High prices of oil means not only the rich oilmen are getting richer. But, the radicals have more money to by GUNS. Who is growing at a rapid pace (by our continual investments and development) without the oil to sustain their growth?

What is it about Capitalism that a huge part of the worlds populations are not interested in? Could it be the massive inequality of wealth, seemingly lack of caring for anybody not rich, even in the Super Empire. "Compassionate Conservatism" The world clearly sees the Conservatism, but does not see the Compassion. Work shall set you free! Capitalism wants everybody, not rich, to be working at slave wages with no benefits and no employee rights (no unions to protect the workers).

So far the word for America (USA) is "Capitalist Hubris!" It is a bad image, and sets the stage for the radicals rallying points.

Too bad, because there is an awfal lot of good the USA is doing, and could be doing more of, to help the worlds people who feel "left out."

(Posted 5/12/2003) We will update this soon as to the new realities of global economic development. Most problems remain the same, some problems have been expanded (become even worse), economic strategy has changed dramatically.

(Posted prior to 9/11) The world has witnessed enormous economic development in recent decades, but the generation of wealth and prosperity has been very uneven, so uneven that economic imbalances are seen to exacerbate serious social problems and political instability in virtually every region of the world. The end of the cold war and the accelerated emergence of a global economy have not solved persistent problems of extreme poverty, indebtedness, underdevelopment and trade imbalances, especially in developing regions.

One of the founding principles of the United Nations is the conviction that economic development for all peoples of the world is the surest way to achieve political, economic and social security (stability). It is a central preoccupation of the Organization that over 60 per cent of the worlds population, most of them in Asia, Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, subsist on $2 or less per day. About 1.3 billion people live in extreme poverty. Nearly I billion people are illiterate, and over I billion lack access to safe water. Every day, some 840 million go hungry or face food insecurity.

The United Nations continues to be the single institution dedicated to finding ways to ensure that economic expansion and globalization are guided by policies aimed at ensuring human welfare, sustainable development, the eradication of poverty, fair trade policies and the reduction of crippling indebtedness.

The United Nations urges the adoption of macroeconomic policies that address these imbalances, particularly the growing gap between the North and South, the persistent problems of the least developed countries, and the unprecedented requirements of the economies in transition from centralized to market economies. The Organization has worked at the global and national levels for the creation of an enabling environment for development. It is engaged everywhere in helping the efforts of people to escape from the trap of poverty and hunger, and in promoting child survival, environmental protection, women's progress, human rights and democracy. For millions in poor countries, these programmes of assistance are the United Nations.

Official Development Assistance - ODA

Through their policies and financial flows, the Organization's lending institutions have, collectively, an enormous influence on the economies of developing countries. This is especially true for the least developed countries (LDCs), which include 48 nations whose extreme poverty and indebtedness have marginalized them from global growth and development. The LDCs are the focus of several United Nations assistance programmes, including the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the 1990s, whereby LDCs, the majority of which are in Africa, are targeted as priorities for international development cooperation. Donor countries have agreed to commit 0. 15 per cent of their gross national product (GNP) to this group of nations. Small island developing States (see also page 205), landlocked developing countries and countries with economies in transition to market economies also suffer from critical problems requiring special attention from the international community and are similarly priorities in the assistance programmes of the United Nations system.

Declining Assistance to Development

In 1980, industrialized countries pledged at the General Assembly to devote 0.7 per cent of their gross national product (GNP) to official development assistance (ODA) to developing countries. But that target has been reached by only a few countries - currently Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden. In fact, Nordic countries by themselves provide over 20 per cent of total ODA each year. On average, ODA has remained at less than half of the targeted level, or about 0.3 per cent of industrialized countries' GNP. With the end of the cold war, ODA has fallen by 14 per cent in real terms between 1992 and 1995. By 1996, ODA, at $58 billion, represented a mere 0.25 per cent of the GNP of the 21 main donor countries - its lowest level in 30 years. The largest donor continued to be Japan, followed by the United States, Germany and France.

In the past, official development finance from northern Governments represented the bulk of the financial resources going into developing countries. But in the last few years, private investment in developing countries has increased dramatically, and private investments and loans now far outweigh official flows. Of total resource flows from donor countries in 1996 of $304 billion, $238 billion was private flows, and only $66 billion was official flows, including non-ODA funds.

Both the World Bank and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development carefully monitor these financial flows and point to serious problems that still must be addressed. Eighty per cent of the private capital flow to developing countries, for example, goes to just 12 countries; the poorest countries attract less than 1 per cent of total foreign investment flows; and nearly 50 developing countries are not receiving any foreign capital at all.

Reflecting concern over these issues, the General Assembly decided in 1997 to convene an international conference or a special session of the Assembly by the year 2001 which would be devoted exclusively to the issue of financing for development. The high-level meeting would address, among other things, the continuing high level of indebtedness, the mobilization of innovative domestic and private resources for development, and governance of the international monetary, financial and trade systems.

Africa - a United Nations Priority

The United Nations, reflecting the concern of the international community, has made the critical socio-economic conditions in Africa a priority concern. In affirming its commitment to support the region's development, it has devised special programmes to find durable solutions to external debt and debt-service problems, to increase foreign direct investment, to enhance national capacity- building, to deal with the shortage of domestic resources for development and to facilitate the integration of the African countries into sub regional, regional and world trade.

At its 1986 special session on Africa, the General Assembly adopted the Programme of Action for African Economic Recovery and Development 1986-1990 (UNPAERD), which sought to mobilize political and financial support for economic reforms. Reviewing the Programme of Action in 1991, the Assembly called for a New Agenda for Development of Africa in the 1990s to ensure continued support for the region by achieving an average real growth rate in gross domestic product of at least 6 per cent a year through out the 1990s. The New Agenda accords special attention to human development and increased employment, and to programmes which promote rapid progress in life expectancy, the integration of women in development, child and maternal health, and the provision of adequate nutrition, water and sanitation, education and shelter.

To ensure coordination of United Nations policy-making and of its extensive programmes in the region, the General Assembly launched in 1996 the United Nations System-wide Special Initiative on Africa (UNSIA) to help accelerate Africa's development in the decade to 2005. UNSIA is designed to rationalize and maximize the impact of United Nations assistance, including that of UNDP, UNESCO, UNICEF and the Bretton Woods institutions, through more effective coordination at headquarters and at the country level. The Initiatives mechanisms work to forge coherent partnerships to focus on priorities already identified by African countries.

Official development assistance (ODA) to all developing countries has averaged around $60 billion a year in the 1990s (see box on opposite page). United Nations ODA is derived from two sources: grant assistance from United Nations specialized and technical agencies and United Nations funds and programmes, which has averaged around $4.5 billion; and loans from lending institutions of the United Nations system, such as the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Bank.

ODA from the United Nations system is widely distributed among 130 countries. Africa receives nearly 40 per cent of all United Nations system grant resources, Asia and the Pacific and Latin America each receive 22 per cent, Europe 6.6 per cent and Western Asia 6 per cent.

In 1996, the latest year for which a detailed breakdown is available, the sector comprising humanitarian assistance and disaster management was the largest single recipient of grant-financed development activities of the United Nations system, accounting for over a quarter of total outlays, followed by the health sector. This does not include expenditures by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees which in recent years have averaged around $1 billion annually (see Chapter 5, page 253). In addition, IFAD invests over $250 million a year in loans and grants aimed at relieving hunger and rural poverty (see pages 145 and 163). Finally, the World Bank provides loans totaling over $20 billion a year, while the other so-called Bretton Woods institution, the International Monetary Fund, also offers various forms of support to countries in financial difficulties (see pages 135 and 136 respectively).

But the activities of the United Nations system have been affected by the marked decline of the share of ODA in total resource flows (see box on page 130). Moreover, the share of United Nations system development grants in declining total ODA has dropped from around 8 per cent ($4.9 billion) in 1993 to less than 7.5 per cent ($4.3 billion) in 1996.

As general (core) resources provided to United Nations agencies and bodies have declined, there has been a relatively rapid increase in non-core resources provided for specific programmes, projects or funds. While all countries contribute to development cooperation, nearly 90 per cent of core resources is provided by only 15 industrial countries. The traditional donor base has been static, despite significant changes in the global economy.

Return to top of Page


The End of Capitalism? 

The Millennium of the West: "Already Christianity, the faith once almost synonymous with Europe, is decaying in its homelands - as its rival Islam, is not. Electoral democracy, the rule of law, the tolerance of dissent, the belief in individual rights: all of these, which now seem characteristic of the West, are quite recent inventions, repeatedly trampled down in the region that proclaims them; and there is no guarantee (though fair reason to expect) that they will last, there or elsewhere. Still, for now, the world is one largely shaped by the West." – The Economist, "Millennium Special Edition" December 31, 1999. The Turning Point.

We may be witnessing the beginning of the end of Capitalism as we currently know it. We don't think so. Capitalism has never worked better for the top 1-2%, but we may see a "new economics system" maybe "binary" like. We have seen many of the Communist and Socialist systems decline. Although, we continue to help the biggest Communist country (China) to grow at higher rates than any other country in the World, including the USA. Estimates are that we have invested over one $trillion dollars++ and helped them create over 150 million jobs, given them our latest technology and manufacturing know-how, etc etc. It was only a few years ago that you came under the eye of the FBI if you even mentioned the word, Communism (in the 1950's). Now under the new "Anti-Terrorism Law" the FBI can't distinguish between the real criminals and their own socially responsible and concerned citizens. Shame on the FBI. No communist threat; but citizen's who speak out against the social injustices of the new economic order. The new "bad guy" is the "left wing (Democrat) thinker." Seems USA is becoming more paranoid. One of the problems with becoming the new "Super Power," you have more to lose. (We wonder if England was this paranoid when they ruled the waves?)

The Socialist countries are struggling to survive and compete in the "New World Order of Globalization" and open competition. They are quickly discovering that they will have to "structurally adjust" to survive. That means a pattern of dumping their workers, lower taxes for the rich/corporations, taxing the rest, and pulling the "social safety nets" as the USA has been doing since 1980. Creating miniature USA's in the developing countries,with a few very rich at the top and a widening gap of more and more poor at the bottom.

That leaves Capitalism in the cat-bird-seat, or so it seems. However, some people see Capitalism being replaced with Corporatism! The rise of power and money in corporations and the influence of corporations on government policies and peoples destiny. Their need to control the media, News, TV, Cable, Internet, Web, Cellular, etc.

Prior to 1989 and the collapse of the USSR.
Global conditions and focus.
Visible changes occurring... After 1989 and the collapse of the USSR.
Current Global conditions and focus
Governments with power and money. Power and money shifting to... Governments being replaced by Transnational Corporations and a few Super Rich. The rise of Corporatism. See below.
Governments main focus on Sovereignty and border issues. Shift away from Sovereignty issues to... Globalization. Sovereignty being replaced by the Transnational Corporations focus on Globalization. They see no borders. Want to operate any where in the world for the cheapest labor.
Governments enforced Sovereignty issues by Militarism. New technologies and weapons leaves militarism an option but the focus shifts to... Control... Militarism is being replaced by a new focus on Control of the people. More prisons even for women with babies. More police on the streets. More right wing Judges on the benches. More new laws passed and aimed at the people. Terrorism Bill signed, passed and funded, aimed at terrorism inside the USA. New tax cuts for the rich and corporations, more taxes for the rest. Getting big government off the backs of the Corporations. Microsoft and the Tobacco Industry are two recent trends (as of April 2000).

This new Corporatism, rapid separation of the rich and the poor (the widening gap) the greed and lack of compassion for the people in their own companies and countries is leading many throughout the USA and the World to question the efficacy of Capitalism. Even the Pope has said that this current period has proven that Communism and Capitalism is not a fair system for the people and has called for a "new form of Economics."

Will today's huge salaries devour tomorrows earning's?

There is "no inflation" but every year or so, we have to buy another $600 copy of Microsoft Windows 2000 and Office 95, 97, 98, 2000 etc. Even the Justice department calls Microsoft a "Monopoly with unfair prices." No wonder Bill Gates ($70+ Billion) and the rest of his corporate team has that kind of similar wealth. But then, "After a decade of seemingly limitless pay increases, the average compensation for the chief executives shot up an additional 23 percent, to $11.9 million, last year." (NY Times 4/2/2000) "In 1988 the average pay of the CEO was $2 million. In 1995 it was $5.8 million. In 1999 it was $11.9 million. Many CEO's are now $Billion earners as they continue to search for ways to lay more people off, and find cheaper labor or technology solutions to labor costs. See NYTimes, Sunday, April 2, 2000 Section 3 pages 16-17 for a complete list of 160 top CEO's pay and total equity. Add up the total and then compare to the GNP of the Developing Countries, or think in terms of why there is no Health Care Plan for all Americans?

While more and more American's are invested in the 'Market" its more like a big pond; not very deep! A serious correction to the market, would bring many Americans to their knees economically.

Since this wealth compounding effect will accelerate at even higher rates further separating the rich from the poor and creating an ever increasingly dangerous widening of the "Gap." Something will have to give, and change soon. The easy way out for the few rich is "Binary Economics;" it beats re-distribution or social-give-backs, revolution and expensive "bunkers"etc. But, it will require complete new thinking and adjustments to the existing system. The rapid rise in new technologies may provide the basis for a new social framework more effective than any of the past.

Corporations are being targeted and brought under focus and scrutiny by the people, governments and intellectuals. More and more books are being written about finding a new economics, a new capital ownership solution. It is the current rapid trend towards Corporatism and greed for a few at the top, that just may bring down Capitalism. Time will tell.

This is causing the government to respond with paranoid acts to prevent internal terrorism, and new laws such as the "1996 Anti-Terrorism Act". Does it violate the "First Amendment Rights of challenging the evidence? Over 150 Lawyer professors think so. Some refer to this act as a renewal of McCarthyism . . . change the word "Communism": to Terrorism;" and everybody is suspect! Remember Hoover and Nixon, "we'll get them on the list" even religious organizations (Sisters of Mercy of Baltimore, MD.) and the Methodist minister, Frank Wilkinson (California) bugged and under surveillance by 8 FBI agents for 45 years!

There are enough real global problems for all of us, including the FBI to focus on. We might just build an even bettrer world for more people to share in.

Now we have the "Patriot Act" and a powerful direct frontal attack on America and Capitalism by a network of terrorists spread across the globe. (2001-2002)

Return to top of Page


New Developments!

Two major shifts have occurred in global development/business.

First, the officers of the major transnational corporations that were busy "globalizing" during the 1960's, 70's and 80's where either Marketing or Production Management CEO's/GM's. These executives were builders of either markets/customers/employees or builders of production /employees operations overseas to compliment their home-based operations. They came to stay and Manage these investments/companies/markets.

Today, the heads of these corporations are Financial officers which have been taught that "everything inside a corporation is nothing but a cost!" Therefore, the name of their game, is to cut the "fixed" and cut the "variable" costs. The "variable costs" are the sales/marketing/customer costs and the "fixed costs" are the assets and especially the people...i.e., downsizing and dumping of masses of their people/employees. They especially like the international markets, where they can find near slave labor without worker rights (no unions). Note the tremendous interest in China and others. Note: GM's current 90, 000 worker/labor dispute and their threat of moving the plants to Brazil for cheaper labor, or no labor - being all replaced with new production technology. Boeing is building the most modern aircraft plant in the world in China 2002. These executives are raiders, acquirers, slash and burners, downsizers, dumpers and destroyers. This has benefits because their financial ratios then look great for Wall Street and the fund markets/managers to invest in their companies. This gives them more money to raid, acquire and dump the next company... anywhere on the earth! When it catches up to them, investors will suffer!

Second, The 1960's, 1970's 1980's and early 1990's saw the International Bankers as the key dominant players in the global expansion. These organizations, by the nature of their business, were long-term investors in the countries they operated in. Their financial commitments were not easily or quickly withdrawn. This left some margin for a "soft landing" for a developing country in the event of a change in mind or money shift strategy by the investors.

In June 1998, we saw for the first time in the U.S.A.; the bankers being replaced by a new set of players with more money and therefore power to shape global development and individual countries. They are now replaced with the Financial Fund Management Sector. This particular industry, being market driven, is now dictating the countries policies if they want the opportunity of their investments in their countries. Their #1 requirement is guaranteed "liquidity." In short, they are willing to invest billions into a country, and they want to be able to withdraw or sell their shares instantaneously! This leads to short-term economic investments, if they so chose. Asia is a classic example of the speed of withdrawal and the social consequences for millions of people in that region but, also for millions of people in the developed countries who will have to pay increased taxes to shore them up (through IMF bailouts) along with the negative business impacts to the nations outside of Asia.

What makes this all very interesting is that the Financial leaders of these institutions do not have to listen to or deal with the social problems they so quickly create. When questioned about this, they always respond, "My only obligation is to my shareholders, making a profit and bottom line. I have no accountability or responsibility to anyone else."

We agree this leads to a "New World Economic Order." "Stay the Course...A thousand Points of Light" and all those kinds of things... But, We also wonder if this leads to a "Stable and Equitable World Order?" (Becomming more relevant in 2002!)

Are we moving towards a new or adjusted form of Economics?
Is Global Greed and the rapid separation of the Rich from the Poor pushing Kelso and Binary Economics, Land Taxation's, Tobin Taxes...New Ownership Solutions... Terrorism; All targeting Big Business and Corporate Leaders and the Super Rich?

Suggested reading: Author: Jeff Gates, Book: "The Ownership Solution: Towards a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century," - May 1998. Endorsed by a list of Who's Who from the UN to the World Bank, Senators and the top Universities in America.

"Binary Economics: The New Paradigm" by Robert Ashford and Rodney Shakespeare, 1999 University Press

Return to top of Page

Japan: Recovery underway.

Japan's stocks have been rising for the past 6 months (4/4/2000) Guess why?

Japan is now ready for the structural adjustments, downsizing of their government, and dumping of their work force they will have to do to bring their companies in line with the USA and Europe's newly structured companies. While Japan's companies were "kicking butts" in the 1970's and 1980's, they will need to downsize, dump their workers and re-engineer their companies to get back in the game... they are now well under way in this process.

Wall Street, acting as the anchor for the new global markets coming on stream (some 200), is key to the globalization process. It is the markets which enables the globalization process, the privatization of the corporations throughout the globe, and the structural adjustments demanded. This is the strongest reason why a major global recession or crash of Wall Street will be avoided at all cost. But, it is always possible.

We are still looking for the Market to go on up through 10,000 and even 15,000 in the near future (See our IAED-International News Letters of 1996 and 1997. PS: We have been calling the Market since it was at 200 points (actually a few years before IAED's time).

October 2002, what has happened to the Market and our prediction of 15,000 where we were headed until... New government with new (Reagan like) objectives. President George W. Bush ran on a platform of "get tuff," go it alone, build up the military, and every President "magically" builds up his home state's economy/businesses while they are in office. For Texas, that means oil and military action. (PS; Remember President George H. Bush) Military buildup means pushing the stock market down so that the bonds become more attractive. That's how you fund (bnorrow) for war and military build up. PS: It is also excellent for the transfer of wealth and corporate ownership back to the top of society. Huge tax breaks for the rich would greatly help this process. Have you noticed that the "Debt Clock" at 42nd Street and Avenue of the America's in New York City has been turned back on in 2002?

Return to top of Page

Global Strategy

Since 1990, IAED has been monitoring activities at the United Nations which have global impacts on all civilizations. There is a massive transformation of civilization occurring all over the globe. It is much greater than an "industrial" or "information" revolution. In fact, there are many revolutions all occurring simultaneously. The impacts have been and will continue to change most of our lives. There are wonderful opportunities and some concerning potential catastrophic problems. IAED keeps an eye on the Global Strategy as it dictates economic and social development and changes business conditions worldwide, and impacts on the ability of a Developing Country to succeed in global markets and economically and socially develop. IAED concentrates on the opportunities which can lead to positive developments in the Developing Countries for its members. We try to solve some of the problems, by keeping our members aware of the global problems which can be turned into opportunities for their companies and technologies and/or addressed through IAED Country Projects. IAED, through Charitable gifts from our members, looks for critical contributions which are essential to helping countries develop and compete in the global markets, all while maintaining their "social net" and stability.

Return to top of Page  

The New World (Economic) Order... ("Stay the course, a thousand points of light.", etc. etc.

BusinessWeek's March 31, 1997 issue "The New Business Cycle" correctly pointed out that the consumer is no longer driving the economy. It did correctly identify the Information Technology industry as one of the leaders. However, it missed totally "who" is driving the economy and the other two areas that are leading the world economy. Nor did they cover why and what the shift means. The impact of that information is literally revolutionary and has global impacts! See our "IAED International Newsletters." or our Members Section.


The "Yin & Yang"
of it all

Whether you believe in the Eastern culture of "Yin and Yang" or the Western culture of the basic law of physics... For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Globalization carries with it the seeds for good and bad. What is good for one group seems to be bad for another, and vis-a-vis. You must understand both sides of the issues first and then realize that the answer is not that easy...sometimes there are many other sides and the issue becomes much more complex than first appears. Every problem, once it is identified, looks like it has a simple solution to it. A classic case of this was in all the global conferences held by the UN. Government leaders, concerned peoples (NGOs), and experts from around the world analyzed and identified the major global issues of our times and at first glance it appeared we already have the solutions. Needless to say, we are a long way from solutions. Regardless of your choice for a will cost a lot of money. Could that be why certain countries are insisting on, "no more global conferences."

The U.S.A.'s Strategy of cutting their funds and support to the United Nations, may be a major international strategy mistake. They have even gone as far as to suggest "the United Nations leaves the United States." Seems some people do not understand that the "United Nations" is all 191 countries of the world including our best partners England, Europe etc. Are they suggesting our "friends" go home? They have refused to pay their legal obligations of past dues and fees for years now. What is behind the thinking on this? What is the strategy? What are the implications of this strategy?

If the UN does not get the funds to run their day-to-day operations, they will have to restructure and downsize and maybe capsize!. This should force them to look for areas of waste, duplication, inefficiency, corruption, etc. Hopefully, this will lead to a complete re-engineering of the UN System and to efficiencies and a more effective organization. Or if kept up, could it eventually lead to a dismantling of the organization? If the UN remains in the USA, will the USA gain more control from this strategy? Will this type of financial constraints force the UN to go to the Corporations (multinationals/transnationals) to look for funds? Would that change the balance of power at the UN? Will the Corporations want to make decisions at the UN? Are the corporations a "moral force" which will show compassion for the peoples concerns. Do corporations have any type of "values system" or "morality," other than pure economic and "bottom line" mentality? Quote, "I'm only responsible to my shareholders, to make a profit at any cost!"

Is this strategy backfiring on the USA? Are the governments at the UN getting fed up with this strategy? Do the powerful peoples organizations find it totally distasteful and non-representative of the best interests of global peace. Do some powerful and rich USA citizens find it disgusting and are willing to give their own money to the UN? Just what is being withheld and cut from the USA's financial obligations? Could it be the humanitarian areas...Health/WHO, Children/UNICEF, Food/FAO, Education/UNITAR/UNU/UNESCO and Housing/Habitat? What is behind the thinking of that policy?

Instead of giving the corporations an opportunity to get into the the strategy forcing the people (NGO's) to focus on and target the corporations instead of the governments, as they have for the past 52 years? Are more and more people and governments beginning to support the concept of a Tobin Tax on the corporations and rich? Are people beginning to look for a new " Ownership Solution?" Will this strategy undermine the safety and stability for our corporations in their global markets? Funny how actually the United Nations has been the single biggest contributor to the corporations safety and security in their international markets. Could their safety and security be impacted by this strategy? While they (corporations) see the New World Economic Order as an opportunity to expand and invest in the rest of the world where nearly "everything is up for sale," is this USA strategy beginning to backfire on our businesses?

Is the downsizing and marginalizing of the educated American worker middle-class (non-stop since 1980) to provide the money and opportunity for our corporations to go global for cheap labor beginning to come into scrutiny? Estimates are in the 10s of millions of workers dumped in the USA! Do we have full employment? Have we created employment for the downsized? Or just employment for the youth and women in mainly low level service jobs or low paying - no benefits jobs. Of course, there are limited jobs in the high-tech and financial markets. These centers of well paid workers are surrounded by all the rest of the marginalized and poor. How far and for how long will this continue without an opposite and equal reaction? Are we forcing our downsized into high risk entrepreneurial startup businesses where usually 85 to 95 percent fail within the first two years? Do the downsized lose first their jobs and benefits, and later as a failure in their own businesses... their assets, homes and ultimately their families? Are we currently seeing a rise in bankruptcies, late payments on credit cards and mortgages? How can this be in such a " booming economy"? Will this current Government change the bankruptcy laws so that these " New World Order Entrepreneurs" (the little people who have lost their jobs) can not even protect their assets, themselves and families like the corporations enjoy? Was Christmas 1997 in America for the rich? Check the retail sales activities. Are we willing to separate our society into just very rich and very poor? What might be the consequences? The key to the American miracle is the credit that the people can "feel" like they are participating also. But, the credit card requires a job to be able to pay back the debt. Are we beginning the possibility of destroying our system of equity and stability?

If you continually cut funds to education every year since 1980...can you not criticize the education system for not doing its job? If you continually dump educated workers at the rate of 8,000 a day (World Bank figures) since 1980...will you destroy the family? If the government continually downsizes (and is willing to shut itself down completely) and cuts social programs and destroys the "social net" of our civilization... what will our people think?...and what does the World think of us? If people become confused with the dynamics of the globalization and change affecting them, will they pull back to the things that are certain to them?...their families, religions and cultures? Will they then look for answers to what is happening to them and begin to look for someone to blame? Will that energy (blame) be focused on other ethnic races, religions, groups or be focused on the government or corporations? Will people burn churches? Will misguided individuals blow up our buildings? Will farmers turn to militia activities? Will intellectuals and professors, Nobel laureates write books warning us?

Can the only super power sell its kind of culture and business around the world, while it turns its back on its own citizens, pulling the safety "social net" in the name of balancing the budget. Can you criticize China one day for imprisoning its citizens, while it leads the world in the number of its own citizens in prisons, and is building more every day! Can you criticize China for making their prisoners work one day, and the next day allow states in their own country to do the same thing? Can a world leader cut 50 to 60 billions of dollars to welfare children, even disabled ones, and be respected in this new world order?

Could Americans be moving from the "Ugly Americans" to the "Hated Americans?"

Will we blunder on for the sake of cupidity and lack of compassion for our own citizens and fellow global citizens into the next human disaster? No wonder everyone senses that "mean spirited, crass and insincere attitude" prevalent in America today. Even Johnny-Walker Black Label has posters all over New York City on bus stops saying just that! Along with the, "you are not ENTITLED to it attitude." Only the rich are entitled to get richer (See the UNDP Human Development Report of 1997 or Americas current tax law changes, or Steven Forbes new NGO - AHGO Business Round table, Americans for Hope Growth and Opportunity, " elite inner circle of business leaders which I want to help me formulate and lobby Congress for effective, pro-growth, pro-business policies and further tax cuts for the rich."

As the USA pushes for a New World Order in which only the Corporations, Markets and Privatization are the rulers. Are the people going to have a clash with big business or become true partners? Is anybody going to keep an eye on big business, or are they free to do whatever they want to do? Can big business order the government to withdraw and downsize? Does big business have a values system and are they moral? Or only ruled by the markets and bottom-line profits?

We believe we all need each other; People, Government and Corporations. They are all equal partners. All three have their role to play; obligations, responsibilities and accountability. And they need to be in balance. Government can not withdraw or shutdown, and corporations can not take all! Suggested readings: John Steinbecks "Grapes of Wrath", Charles Dickens "Oliver Twist" and David Korten "When Corporations Rule the World." or last weeks (March 1998) TV show on how a private sector prison in America was using women as call girls.

IAED's only interest is a fair opportunity for all people of the world. Not a handout, but a fair opportunity for everyone in the world to participate in each of our short life spans on this planet.

Some experts believe that human beings have been on this planet for about 100 million years and that there has been about 100 billion of us humans here. At this very instance in time there is only about 6 billion of us alive. This simply means that about 94 billion of us have already come here and gone. They, like us, have loved, hated, killed, worried, and all the other things we humans do...and they are all gone. I don't know where they went? But I am not going. How about you? Have we learned anything? Don't take life so are not going to get out of it alive.

If you are going to take it serious, can we not focus our efforts on making this a better planet for all of us? This is the sole purpose of IAED.

Return to top of Page

We are working on our Discussion Section for your active feedback and inputs...stay tuned.

Africa: Next coming Boom!

GREAT NEWS!! The "AFRICAN UNION" is formed. (2000-2001-2002) Still huge problems exist looking for solutions.

A new Muammer Al Qathafi? Re-focused on the development and stabalization of Africa. Improving relations with every country of the world but the USA.

Get rid of Africa's Debt, and Go after HIV/AIDS in Africa then, . . .

Africa's time has come. And all the big Boys/Girls know it. Of course, they want ...first dibs! So they will not acknowledge it, and will keep their activities under wraps. So you might as well just start getting busy yourself, if you are not there already.

AT&T and others are already looking at a fiber optic cable strung all around Africa. Others are getting satellites into orbit. There are many positive signs on the economic and political horizon already! Africa has its problems, but it also has its bright spots. They are showing an up tick in economic behavior for the first time in many years. With the games being played in Asia currently, and the Transnationals and multilateral financial institutions ability to move business and money at the click of the computer mouse and the speed of satellite transmissions. Heck, you never know...Africa's future could take a big jump sooner than you think.

The most promising positive development so far is that with the exception of one leader of the African states of the Great Lakes region they all know each other, they are all young and they all came form revolutionary backgrounds. They basically think the same, and want peace and time to develop their countries. They are not interested in outside forces interfering in their affairs any more; Especially military forces from outside of Africa or UN Peace Keepers. They have plenty of guns (thanks to us) and well trained armies which can handle their own affairs. They are now more interested in becoming an integrated part of the global economy. That requires peace, stability, infrastructures, privatization, human rights, good governance...all those things that will lead Africa into next century as a winner!

With a solid middle core stretching from the east coast to the west coast of Africa; Only a couple exceptions along the way. What Kabil does with Congo is key, we will have to wait and see. Congo will need a lot of help to rebuild and protect what they have. With a strong South Africa and a potential northern Africa Lebanon -Libya, as anchor points for African development, you have set the stage for a great future for Africa...if they don't blow it! PS: Throw in the international agreement signed in Copenhagen in 1997 by 117 countries to develop Africa and you can either be there or read about it.

They are going to need a lot of help to be able to leapfrog and jump-start their economies to catch up with the Developed Countries. IAED has already been active in Africa, and will continue to assist those countries who are going to try to make it.

Return to top of Page

Libya: Key to the Development of Africa
Libya: Northern Africa
's Lebanon

South Africa will anchor development from the south, and play the pivotal role for Africa's development from the south. Interesting that President Mandella has recently visited with Col. Muammar Al Qathafi in Libya. Libya could and should play the anchor to the north and be the pivotal role player in Africa's development coming from the north. Looking at all the northern countries of Africa, Libya offers the most; space, peace, calm, stability, weather, climate, infrastructure for business and living, communications, roads, television, satellite and cellular phones, building rails, airports, past history of being a real partner of the USA - and likes the USA. Still has many USA citizens living there and pumping out the high grade oil. Safe enough for many hundreds of tourists from Europe to visit daily.

Quaddafi has said he is willing to open up his country for inspections as to any wrong doings that he is currently accused of within his boarders. He also has said he would like to normalize relations with the USA. The longer the USA delays, the longer they lose in the development of Africa and the opportunity for better relations needed with the Arab world.

The dependency is the USA's policy, which should and will change...remember Vietnam?

Regardless, Col. Muammar el-Quaddafi should be uniting the other Arab states with all their oil, money and long term interest in Africa, and focusing on the Africans who are interested in economic development. He should be selling Libya to his already European friends, business partners and tourists to look at Libya as a safe and secure place to put their African headquarters - like Lebanon was for the Middle East - He could also convince Asian and South American companies interested in Africa, to set up headquarters in Libya. This is a great opportunity and challenge for el-Quaddafi that could change his image throughout the world. We think he is capable of it...time will tell. He could make some compassionate humanitarian efforts in Africa. Would be much better for his global image.

We led the USA in the early development of Asia in the seventies. Designing and conducting the first courses in America on..."Doing business with China" and "Doing business with Vietnam" in 1977! It took the USA Government a little while to catch up with Vietnam, till 1996. However, they jumped on China - and we are hoping it will not take as long for Libya. Like Vietnam, the longer they wait, the more they lose!

Libya as a threat to the USA - just doesn't make any sense any more. China killing thousands and taking hundreds of American soldiers across the Korean boarder during the Korean War, China with over a billion people vs Libya with 5 million, China with nuclear weapons, China with no democracy, Libya with a rather highly developed form of democratic participation of their peoples in assemblies...etc, etc, etc. Vietnam we fought a long war with and lost 55,000 Americans. And yes, it makes sense to be friendly with all three countries. If you are thinking long term geopolitical strategy, all three should be our strategic partners.

We believe in Africa NOW! We already have been down in Africa (1994) with Science and Technology projects. We have established a positive track record and have many more projects planned for Africa in the near future. We will be expanding this section of our web site.

Would you like to join us at IAED, and in our country projects?

Return to top of Page

IRAN: Getting to Love the Enemy.

Look for the USA to fall in Love with the "Rogue State" of Iran. That's out with the new administration (2002). It will take alittle while. Each country will have to sell it to their citizens (you know sports; ping-pong, soccer or whatever) who have been conditioned to think otherwise. Caspian Sea Oil is behind this new love affair. It is reported that there just might be more oil in the Caspian Sea than in all of the Middle East fields. We need to get it to the Sea and our tankers. Makes us wonder why John Duech of Joc Oil is or was the bad guy?

PS: We really don't believe the concept of the "Rogue State" or the "Evil Empire" is a viable one in the "New World Order of Globalization." Therefore, where does that place Libya? Sure Muammar el-Quaddafi was a young man in his twenties when he took over Libya, and he said a lot of things we might not have liked. But, he has not done anything compared to what the USA has done to other countries or what other countries, including Iran, have done to the USA. Muammar el-Quaddafi is older, wiser and could be a real friend to the USA. He has publicly said he was interested in a new relationship with the USA. The people of Libya have always seen the USA as a friend. There is potential there.

As for Iran, it has a great opportunity to show to the rest of the world (especially the United States of America) that the religion of the great Mohammed, namely Islam is a just, compassionate and forgiving religion. Right now when the single fastest growing religion in the USA is Islam; Iran has a chance to set a world example. Just the "family values" alone is a threat to West's religions. Why not take the best of both world's religions and exclude the worst features.

Iran must remember its great history and become once again a great empire. It could do it . . . it is sitting in a key strategic position in the Middle East oil fields. The world is changing. President Clinton has offered an open door for talks. A Bush will probably not be to likely to extend a open hand if elected. Conditions and timing is right for Iran to act favorably now. Israel is now negotiating with Syria.

Time is running out for Iran. They need to act now or they look as "outside/rogue" as Iraq.


Return to top of Page

Russia: Key to World Peace.

Is Russia's recent move to tie stronger relations with China on the Asian boarder and France and Germany on the European boarder of the Eurasia continent a result of neglect felt by Russia in the USA's current geoeconomic, geostrategy? Or is it simply the result of reading Zbigniew Brzezinski's latest 1997 book on Geostrategy? Are we really jockeying for dominance or partnership with Russia?

In the London Financial Times, of the week of December 8, 1997, on the same front page were articles telling of a near $60 billion bail out for Korea and around $40 billion bail out for Indonesia and a $22 billion bail out for Thailand ... while on the same front page was Russia begging for a $1 billion loan to survive.

We need closer favorable relationships cemented with Russia while we have the opportunity. And we need to develop long term sustainable economic developmental strategic partnerships with her. There needs to be a carefully thought out plan of action for helping Russia become what it has asked the West for.

Return to top of Page

Iraq Bombing December 1998:
Russia/China Reaction.

Should the USA and England keep bombing Iraq? What do they get for the effort? Sadam is still there and more defiant than ever. [In March 2000, he even gets to sell his oil at a higher price.] What are the real costs? How do American and British people feel the costs of the effort relate to the cuts in their own social benefits to their own people? What about Russia and China who opposed the action? Russia has approached both China and India to suggest a treaty between the three; just in case the "super power" gets too pushy out in their area of the world. How does this event impact Zbigniew's "GeoStrategy" theory? Now there's an interesting read.

The Biggest Secret is the real impact on the innocent people and children in Iraq from over ten years of bombing and economic sanctions.

Return to top of Page

USA - The REAL Impact of
"Globalization: Downsizing".

For Americas largest corporations (the transnationals) the impact of their past and current downsizing, re-engineering and going global is similar to a massive army which abandons its headquarters to move out into the field on battle campaigns. All while leaving its headquarters open for attack. Similar to the Vietnam Tet Offensive. Americas corporations are wide open for competitive action against them . . . a business "Tet Offensive."

Anything from out right purchases to taking away market share in their prime markets is now a great opportunity for anybody with money and corporations from inside and outside the USA. While the transnationals are trying to secure the foreign markets with such clever institutions as WB, IMF, Structural Ajustments, WTO World Trade Organization, OECD, MAIs and the current financial strategy to reorganize the United Nations to be a developmental organization without money, except what they can get from the private sector.

Lets look at just a few interesting developments:

They are downsizing their costs (mainly fixed (the people) - to get it off their balance sheets) to get the right ratios to attract the money from investors, pensions and funds, rather than securing markets and paying attention to the customers. They believe that the international markets and cheap labor are worth the abandonment of the workers and market that created them. They would rather buy foreign markets and good companies, which they will eventually destroy with their incessant financial "cutting."

Over the past two years more and more corporations are placing the "Beans" in the top position of CEO. Bean-counters, also known as CFOs, financial managers/executives, only understand how to "Cut the Fixed Costs" and "Cut the Variable Costs." They will continue doing what they know how to do, until they have destroyed the company, with few exceptions! There is a basic rule of business which they follow...If you don't know what to do, the probability is, you will do what you know what to do (Big trouble). You can be sure, they will keep cutting and out sourcing until there is no expertise or contacts with their customers. Since their only accountability and responsibility is to the stock market - they will continue to manipulate the financial ratios instead of building the company with expertise and developing customers and markets. Witness how customers are treated when they attempt to telephone the company! Customers are not important, stock markets are! (ENRON and others are examples of this thinking gone berserk! - 2002)

You can bank on it! Remember the Savings and Loan experience in America only a few years ago and the current Asian financial crisis (see our 1996 Newsletter warning of just that!), to name only two of the larger examples.

My suggestion to the "Beans" is; Have you tried calling your own company lately? Its a joke! Yes they were able to get rid of the telephone operator and they have a computer answer your call after 10 minutes or longer on hold or a menu of choices, except the one you are calling for. I especially like the British fellow who answers a lot of the calls. Very British, very proper and very long winded, boring! (Ck the UN telephone number out 1-212-687-1234) They must have a contract with the long distance telephone carriers. Definitely costly to their customers and irritating at the least! A recent call to a New York City hospital recorded that at number nine, "If you are having a heart attack, press number 9." There will probably be many companies who will lose business/customers on this alone. The customer is no longer relevant to the "Beans" if 85% of their business is now outside of America, or the real source of their income does no longer come from customers, but from the stock markets or from sales between each other. The New World Financial Order!

They have replaced tens of millions of American workers who cared about their companies with cheap foreign work forces. They have dumped their experienced work force for cheaper young people sitting at computers surfing the web (the information superhighway) for the "holy grail" or was it the latest sex sites? They have also hired a few very expensive number crunchers out of the grad schools to develop models for the latest derivatives schemes. And look at Swiss Re's and others recent experience with that process. [While the preceding statements were written 2-3 years ago, they are still more relevant. CBS News TV, March 17, 2000 reports that "the corporations are losing productivity of their new work force, which is now sitting on computer terminals and surfing the Web on everything but company business."

E-Commerce should save some of these companies due to the fact that customers will buy from them in spite of their current customer management policies and the fact that it opens markets worldwide. On the other hand, that same web capability will bring new competition from unexpected sources. Look for surprises, rapid and unexpected changes.

THEY HAVE JUMPED AT THE OPPORTUNITY TO INVEST IN THE ASIAN MIRACLE... and look where the money went! As of this writing the figure was above $120+ billion dollars write-off and the head of the IMF is quoted as saying, "there isn't a country in the world that will not feel the impact of the Asian financial crisis." But wait, I thought the "Beans," the new financial executives CEOs that are heading our companies, have all the answers?

The Beans do have all the answers. The Government will order the banks (USA citizens money) to pay the Asian crisis. The Beans will then take their money and raid the Asian countries to buy their best corporations and assets at "rock bottom prices" as they devalue their currencies. They will then sell off the assets and downsize the workforce and move on to the next target. So what is new? International Carpet Baggers. Americans (ugly) will be loved even more.

All while refusing to pay the USA legal obligation to the United Nations - the last hope for people's rights throughout the world. $1.3+ Billion behind as of 1999 and compounding.

The large established corporations (transnationals) have dumped so many workers from the developed countries that the biggest work force they have now is security guards. The exception being the internet companies with young (no-benefits) workers and financial corporations feeding globalization. Even the USA Government says, "If your looking for jobs... don’t look to our big corporations they have gone "off shore." Look to women in America, they are now the number one employer." Is that because their husbands are at home or working at McDonalds? Or are they all entrepreneurs and consultants surfing the superhighway for clients, one step from the curb and a hair away from bankruptcy? Note the new bankrupty laws for the working people about to be passed in the Fall of 2002 the USA to prevent them from protecting their assets.

Thank God for the internet and new IPO's! Where would the economy be? When will they try to "manage" these new start-ups. Sales, Customers, profits, dividends etc? No need, while the stocks keep going up and the takeover opportunities are still there. Opps! That's the end of the internet wiz kids...2002

All this is good news for the global competition. Many millions of experienced managers are now available for hire by global competitors. Huge American markets are wide open for the picking. You can expect a Business Tet Offensive anytime. Do you want to take bets? How we doing? Billion dollar take-overs continue worldwide!

Return to top of Page

 For more insights on the Global Conditions: The World's Problems, in the year 2000/2.

Comments, information, and suggestions should be sent to: Administrator
* Please read this disclaimer.

© Copyright 1990 - 2004 IAED. All rights reserved.

Return to IAED Home Page or Contact IAED











Comments and articles in "Global Economic Strategy" section do not necessarily represent the entire membership's point of view. IAED tries to avoid political comments, but will comment on economic decisions/actions which affects global economic strategy. We will look at the strategy (economic decisions and actions) from many angles (both the negative & positive impacts) rather than taking a position on one side or the other. We refer to this as the "Yin & Yang" of the issues. We also look at the Macro-Economic and Micro-Economic policies and their effects. Our main purpose is to inform our members and provide stimulation for creative solutions which can contribute to long term global sustainable economic and social development and business survival in this fast changing New World Economic Order.

This site may be linked to other sites which are not maintained by IAED. IAED is not responsible for the content of those sites. The inclusion of any link to such sites does not imply approval of or endorsement by IAED of the sites or the content thereof.

Return to the top of this page.

© Copyright 1990-2012 IAED. All rights reserved.

Return to IAED Home Page or Contact IAED